t2000_balance

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes the scope of data returned: spendable stablecoins, sui gas, other tokens (without USD price), and the meaning of totalUsd. It also notes that v4 wallet is payments-only. This is more informative than the tool name alone. It does not explicitly state it is read-only, but that is implied.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences, each adding value. The first sentence front-loads the main purpose. No redundant or vague language.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Although there is no output schema, the description adequately explains the return structure items: stables, SUI, other tokens, and totalUsd. It also clarifies limitations (no price oracles for arbitrary tokens). For a simple balance tool with zero parameters, this is complete enough.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to add parameter semantics. Per guidelines, baseline score is 4 for zero parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description starts with 'Get the agent's full wallet balance', which is a specific verb+resource. It clearly enumerates what is included (stablecoins, SUI, other tokens) and differentiates from savings/lending via a reference to audric.ai. This distinguishes the tool from siblings like t2000_pay or t2000_send.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description states when to use this tool: to get the balance of the v4 wallet. It also provides an alternative for savings positions ('see audric.ai'), giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or mention when not to use it, so it misses the top score.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.